Progressive Betting Systems

[MarkH45]

so does anyone use a progressive betting system? I have been thinking about using this system but I would like some outside opinion. I was thinking about using
race 1- $10 race 2- $20 race 3-$30 etc... until I win then start over
I am currently betting $20 to win per race but I was thinking the progressive system could be more profitable and cover losses. what do you guys think?

[RaceBookJoe]

Unless you can pick a high % of winners at decent odds, a progressive system will probably cause you to bankrupt. It doesn't even have to be a long losing streak that does it either. A minor losing streak on top of another minor losing streak could really get you in the hole. Again, it all depends on how your selections are. For example, take a favorite.....there was research done and I forget by who, that shows a favorite can lose upwards of double digits (20-30) in a row. At the low odds they pay, I dont htink it would cover the losses that you would have had by then. Hope that helps.

[njcurveball]

so does anyone use a progressive betting system? I have been thinking about using this system but I would like some outside opinion. I was thinking about using
race 1- $10 race 2- $20 race 3-$30 etc... until I win then start over
I am currently betting $20 to win per race but I was thinking the progressive system could be more profitable and cover losses. what do you guys think?


I have loaned many a dollar to guys like you with the same plan. Some even paid me back! :ThmbUp:

[stu]

so does anyone use a progressive betting system? I have been thinking about using this system but I would like some outside opinion. I was thinking about using
race 1- $10 race 2- $20 race 3-$30 etc... until I win then start over
I am currently betting $20 to win per race but I was thinking the progressive system could be more profitable and cover losses. what do you guys think?

I am a firm believer that all progressive systems are flawed and therefore bad. The one that you have proposed is worse than the famous Martingale
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martingale_(betting_system) )

In your system, you get behind with the larger losing streaks.

Lose 1 - down $10
Lose 2 - down $30 ($10 + $20)
Lose 3 - down $60

That's where the problem begins. At race four you are betting $40 in your progession but you are already $60 in the hole. You would need a minimum of 3:2 odds to break even.

Lose 4 - down $100

It gets worse. Now your progression bets $50. You would then need 2:1 to break even.

Lose 5 - down $150 Now you need 5:2.

Theoretically, the problem then becomes have a sufficeintly large enough bankroll to avoid tapping out. Additionally, after each loss you will have to bet into a pool large enough to cover your bet size without reducing the odds that you need break even.

The only way that you come out ahead is if you never lose more than two in a row.

[Robert Fischer]

a


Let me be clear that I do not advise a martingale like system although it is fun theory.
My version of using concurrent wagering schemes with a system like that is based on a security theory. There is a whole science to it but basically, You want to maximize profit and minimize risk of a total failure.

For example let us make the huge assumption that we could get 50% winners at post time odds of 1.5-1 .
Over a given set of 5000 wagers the max probable losing streak would be 12 consecutive losses. Winning back (a previous loss*1.05) would mean you need $1515.00 for 13 wagers. So assuming all this, the goal for that system now becomes accumulating $1515.00 before you hit a 13 wager losing streak. (starting to get an idea why this is "impossible"?)

Assuming we last 2500 wagers(no math used) an average profit of 65 cents per wager would be $1625. So you have your given set of 5000 wagers. The theory is that you can now space concurrent systems on this "number line" to attempt maximize profit. Now we are getting into real math. I will cheat here with a simple example of ALL and ODD. The first system"A" uses ALL wagers in the 5000 set. The second system"B" uses every other(ODD)wager in the 5000 wager set. It is improbable that both systems would ever fail from the same series of wagers(requiring 24? consecutive losses). Odd and All or a limit of two concurrent systems would not necessarily be the most efficient method. Math required.

1.A
2.AB
3.A
4.AB
5.A
6.AB
7.A
8.AB
9.A
10.AB



^ couple of notes

5000 $2 wagers at 50% * 1.5-1 = flat bet profit of $2500.
Even with a nice rebate anyone with these numbers would be unwise to take an edge and risk it through a martingale like system.
A wagering scheme like that would really only be valuable if you can show a profit with a negative expectation or a fair-odds expectation. At 1.5-1 a 40% hit rate would be zero profit or loss. The safety of the system begins to fail on paper after about 590 wagers. Then you would have to determine the probability of different profit or loss outcomes for a given amounts of wagers like 1000 , 2500, 5000 etc. The more efficiently you could use concurrent parts, the more attractive the wagering scheme would be within the probability model for a higher number of wagers.

[Dave Schwartz]

Personally, I like low-side progressive systems.

However, in order to make anything work, you really need a positive expectancy.

In other words, there is no free lunch.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[Bill Olmsted]

Progressive systems wil work if you are willing to take 5% and have a multi million dollar bankroll. :)

[osophy_junkie]

Kelly or some fractional derivative is optimal at increasing return and minimizing risk.

Maybe there are psychological aspects to not using it, but I'm not sure why else you'd not want to?

[SMOO]

I am a firm believer that all progressive systems are flawed and therefore bad.

:ThmbUp:

Even someone with a winning ROI betting flat would eventually go broke betting progressive.

[jonnielu]

so does anyone use a progressive betting system? I have been thinking about using this system but I would like some outside opinion. I was thinking about using
race 1- $10 race 2- $20 race 3-$30 etc... until I win then start over
I am currently betting $20 to win per race but I was thinking the progressive system could be more profitable and cover losses. what do you guys think?

Progression can be workable when you know that your selection process amounts to taking shots. Progression is designed to compensate for taking shots.

However, your selection method must be tuned to the progression method of betting, taking shots on both sides is financial suicide.

With favorites preferred in your selection process, the shot is that the favorites will beat their win %, so that you can preserve your sanity.

Ain't gonna happen, kiss your sanity goodbye.

With longshot selections the shot is that you can spot this horse with consistency, you have a shot there. You will have to tune your selection process to consistently turning up this horse in order to take a good shot.

Not as hard as it sounds, but remember that your prime suspect is that horse that most will see as unlikely. Whatever the factors are that take you here, they must consistently point out the best aimed long shot.

Compensation on one side, usually demands more accuracy on the other side.

Also, you will need to be right at least 20%, that will call for you to develop skill for discerning the quality of one bet from the other. It gets a little tougher there, but do-able.

[levinmpa]

When I was about 20, I thought I had it all figured out. I used Today's Racing Digest to find my 2 or 3 contenders in each race in Northern California. I would only play at 6/1 or better and would use progression based at a fixed 6/1. I started with a $10 win wager and progressed from there. This worked great as long as I hit about 1 out of 10, and I was rewarded with a greater profit when the horse went off at better than 6/1. I was actually doing really well for a couple of months. It was the first time I was actually making money. Then the inevitable losing streak came. I remember getting to the point where I needed to make a $100 win bet on an 8/1 shot. I had lost 16 or 17 in a row. I chickened out and only bet $40. Instead of collecting $900, and being back on track, I only collected $360. I never really recovered from that mistake, but I learned a good lesson. The greater the minimum odds you accept, the greater the chances of long losing streaks. Whether you have the bankroll or not, it's hard to stick with the system when you've lost 14, 15 or more in a row. As the losses mount, the wagers get bigger. It gets to you psychologically.

Here is a theoretical 10 race losing run and how the wagers increased based on the fixed 6/1.

1. $10
2. $12 ($10 + $2 to recover the $10 based at 6/1)
3. $14 ($10 + $4 to recover the $22 based at 6/1)
4. $16 ($10 + $6 to recover the $36 based at 6/1)
5. $19 ($10 + $9 to recover the $52 based at 6/1)
6. $22 ($10 + $12 to recover the $71 based at 6/1)
7. $26 ($10 + $16 to recover the $93 based at 6/1)
8. $30 ($10 + $20 to recover the $119 based at 6/1)
9. $35 ($10 + $25 to recover the $149 based at 6/1)
10. $41 ($10 + $31 to recover the $184 based at 6/1)

After 10 losses I had wagered $225. If I hit that 10th wager, I would have recovered the $225 + a minimum $60 profit. If the winner paid say 10/1 my profits would be about $225. If it wasn't for those damn losing streaks, I'd be a millionaire right now. What the heck, I was only 20. What did I know.

[Dave Schwartz]

Even someone with a winning ROI betting flat would eventually go broke betting progressive

Consider what you have said here...

Apply it to a casino at the roulette wheel. Are you saying that if the CASINO played progressively they would lose?

If that were true, then all one would have to do to beat the roulette wheel would be to parlay.



When I teach people how to bet, this is the number one problem that I have to overcome - Getting them to understand that if, and this is a big IF... IF they have a positive expectancy, they really ARE the casino.

Isn't that the goal?

A truer statement would be, "If you have an advantage, then whatever betting strategy you use SHOULD result in profit."

Obviously, some strategies are better than others for meeting the needs of an individual player.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[Tom Barrister]

If you have a negative expectancy, then you are supposed to lose, no matter what you do.

If you have a positive expectancy, then you are supposed to win, as long as you manage your money properly.

A progressive system in which the bet amount acclerates based on losing is, essentially, a scheme to win, get even, or cover most of the losses with one winning bet. Assuming that you have a positive expectancy to begin with, progressions are wrong for at least three reasons:

1) If you have a positive expectancy, you'll eventually win anyway. Good and bad streaks are bound to occur. There's no need to "get even" immediately. If you keep betting flat amounts, eventually things will level out (I believe statisticians like to say "regress towards the mean") and your positive expectancy will put you in the black.

2) Progressions are a fast way to lose your bankroll. By betting more and more each race, you're allowing the inevitable bad streak to break you. In other words, it's not good money management.

3) When you're losing, your judgement may be clouded and/or you might be doing something wrong. This isn't the ideal time to be increasing your bets.

[jonnielu]

Then the inevitable losing streak came. I remember getting to the point where I needed to make a $100 win bet on an 8/1 shot. I had lost 16 or 17 in a row. I chickened out and only bet $40. Instead of collecting $900, and being back on track, I only collected $360. I never really recovered from that mistake, but I learned a good lesson. The greater the minimum odds you accept, the greater the chances of long losing streaks. Whether you have the bankroll or not, it's hard to stick with the system when you've lost 14, 15 or more in a row. As the losses mount, the wagers get bigger. It gets to you psychologically.



Exactly, no matter what the horseplayer chooses as a method of avoidance, or compensation for inaccuracy, mistakes, oversight.... etc., the strategy must operate to protect against psychological damage.

It's like the foreign shipper, you can't get a good line on him, so you can't really bet him. When he wins.... as he does so often, this causes psychological damage because you knew it, but couldn't believe it. Adequate compensation here might be to put $5 on him, but only if he looks fantastic physically. What ever happens, minimum psychological damage.

In the case of progression, the psychological damage is going to start around loser #17 if your selections average 6-1, and you are looking to make $200 a day from a $2,000 bankroll. All logic is screaming at you... EJECT... EJECT...

If you bail, #18 will lose to affirm your panic ridden decision that resulted from psychological damage. #19 will win, causing more psychological damage. It's not that the entire method is bad, it is that the method must be executed in a way that protects against psychological damage, as it was designed to do.

If you expected that you might have to get to loser #27 without psychological damage, and prepared for it by up-ing the roll to $5,000, then stuck another $5,000 in your back pocket, and another $5,000 in each shoe, with the usual $5,000 still being in the usual hiding place. You would be much better prepared to get thru without psychological damage.

[citygoat]

so does anyone use a progressive betting system? I have been thinking about using this system but I would like some outside opinion. I was thinking about using
race 1- $10 race 2- $20 race 3-$30 etc... until I win then start over
I am currently betting $20 to win per race but I was thinking the progressive system could be more profitable and cover losses. what do you guys think?

You should bet $10 win ticket and when you win put half in your pocket and let the other half ride.Continue until the money is too heavy.

[ryesteve]

Consider what you have said here...

Apply it to a casino at the roulette wheel. Are you saying that if the CASINO played progressively they would lose?
The difference is that the average casino has a much bigger bankroll than the average player. If the casino's cage had the same amount of money as what the average player has in their pocket, then yes, someone playing parlays WOULD bust them, depite the casino's edge.

[maiom01]

The one thing I have learned is if you ever have 27 losers in a row, you really need to eval your selection process. This type of losing streak should not happen. When you are flat betting, this is a major blow to your bankroll.

I am on the fence with the 5% bank theory (wager less when you are losing and add the winnings to the bank - next bet after a win would be 5% of your bank) and a small up progression progression after a loss - since it is attractive to the action need to win today player.

For progression bets (whatever the progression would be), you really need to backtest your selections to verify your longest losing streak with your selection process.

[Dave Schwartz]

The difference is that the average casino has a much bigger bankroll than the average player. If the casino's cage had the same amount of money as what the average player has in their pocket, then yes, someone playing parlays WOULD bust them, depite the casino's edge.

Untrue.

The casino has only as much money as the player says it has in the session.

A "session" is set up as a finite game. Example: I have $10,000. I will play until my $10,000 becomes $20,000 or goes away. Both sides, therefore, have the same amount of money.


Back to my original question:

Apply it to a casino at the roulette wheel. Are you saying that if the CASINO played progressively they would lose?

In other words, if the casino plays progressively are you saying that they will lose?

(Note: The casino playing progressively after a loss is the same as the customer parlaying.)


Dave

[sjk]

The one thing I have learned is if you ever have 27 losers in a row, you really need to eval your selection process. This type of losing streak should not happen. When you are flat betting, this is a major blow to your bankroll.

I am on the fence with the 5% bank theory (wager less when you are losing and add the winnings to the bank - next bet after a win would be 5% of your bank) and a small up progression progression after a loss - since it is attractive to the action need to win today player.

For progression bets (whatever the progression would be), you really need to backtest your selections to verify your longest losing streak with your selection process.

I have lost 50 in a row this week.

This sort of thing happens several times a year.

[ryesteve]

stuff
I'm supposed to remember a debate from 3 months ago? Ok... I'll get back to you on this one in April...

[Dave Schwartz]

Steve,

LOL - Sorry. I never noticed.

No wonder I did not remember making that post.


Dave

[maiom01]

Let me clarify...

If you ever have steady string of losers, you really need to eval your selection process.

Now with that said (here comes the exception), if you are picking double digit horses and they are fighting with the best of them down the stretch and you hit a streak of 2nd, 3rd and 4ths....ok...this would be the exception....

[thespaah]

so does anyone use a progressive betting system? I have been thinking about using this system but I would like some outside opinion. I was thinking about using
race 1- $10 race 2- $20 race 3-$30 etc... until I win then start over
I am currently betting $20 to win per race but I was thinking the progressive system could be more profitable and cover losses. what do you guys think?might work in blackjack or roulette..Never tried it at the track..Don't recommend it unless one has a big budget.
Besides, suppose one was say on a 5 races lsoing streak and he hits the 6th. Using you $10 increment formula, the payoff is $55...The wager was a -$5 net win...

[Dave Schwartz]

Personally, I use a mild chase-the-money strategy within a session. Works wonderfully.

Just the other day I was playing and getting my head handed to me nicely. I literally lost my first 6 bets, then hit a 2/5 and a 7/5, and then lost two head-bob photos, one at 9/2 and the other at 6/1. My last bet in the session (if I lost) came in at $6.80, then I hit at $7.20 and I was almost even to the dollar.

The next day I played a little more and, after all was said and done, showed a 5% flat-bet profit but was ahead almost 25% on actual money wagered.

Personally, I love chasing the money a little within a session. As I have said before, you must be able to turn a flat-bet profit in the long run or ruin is the ultimate result.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[cmoore]

Here's a copuple betting sytems you could try...

Base Bet + square root ( a very safe betting scheme)

Fixed percentage minimum ( higher risk)
I tried this on paper for about a year a long time ago using the prime power numbers from brisnet. I would bet the 2 highest odds of the first 4 prime powers to place. I did hit at a 50% clip. After a win you would rasie your bet and after a loss you would lower your bet. When you had winning streaks you would be betting higher amounts. Losing streaks, you would be betting smaller amounts.. Alternating wins and losses is what you DO NOT want..It worked well on paper. I would go over each race and decide whether it was a play or pass. Then watch the video replay. I won thousands on my spreadsheet. I took 3k and tried it with real money. To make a long story short..I lost the 3k..I didn't know too much about horse racing back then..I might fire up the old spreadsheet again and give it a try.

[DanG]

Two and ¾ cents…

The one thing I’m very sure concerning gambling on horse races…

If a fraction of the money that is spent on “handicapping” was spent on the type of materials Dave has written (for example), there would be far more players in the black each year.

Horse Market Investing: :ThmbUp:

http://www.horsestreet.com/products/hmi/index.html

[john messina]

Here's a copuple betting sytems you could try...

Base Bet + square root ( a very safe betting scheme)

Fixed percentage minimum ( higher risk)
I tried this on paper for about a year a long time ago using the prime power numbers from brisnet. I would bet the 2 highest odds of the first 4 prime powers to place. I did hit at a 50% clip. After a win you would rasie your bet and after a loss you would lower your bet. When you had winning streaks you would be betting higher amounts. Losing streaks, you would be betting smaller amounts.. Alternating wins and losses is what you DO NOT want..It worked well on paper. I would go over each race and decide whether it was a play or pass. Then watch the video replay. I won thousands on my spreadsheet. I took 3k and tried it with real money. To make a long story short..I lost the 3k..I didn't know too much about horse racing back then..I might fire up the old spreadsheet again and give it a try.

While most of what has been said is theoretically correct, there are other realities which come into play. Fortunately or unfortunately depending on your perspective, wins and losses come in clusters. Also all forms of betting (except equal amounts) are some form of progressive or regressive betting.

The Kelly Criterion is a binary system and as such assumes a binary outcome... meaning it limits its outcomes to WIN or LOSE. This isn't neceassarily always the case. Even extending the Kelley Criteon to multiple bets within a race occasionally will suggest betting on negative expectancy choices.

You would be better served understanding the clusters produced by your selection method, before attempting to design a wagering methodology.

Assuming that your wins and losses are evenly spaced is a fallacy. And this assumption is most often used, and will give different distrubtions of result.

There are two ways at looking at probability; Pascals and Bayes.

Pascal's way of looking at the world is that of a gambler: each flip of a coin is independent of the previous one ( wins and losses are also evenly spaced ).

Bayes's allows for the accumulation of experience, and it's incorporation into a statistical model in the form of prior assumptions that can vary with circumstances. A good prior assumption about tomorrow's racing, for example, is that it will be similar to today's. Assumptions about racing the day after tomorrow, though, will be modified by what actually happens tomorrow.

Remember garbage in , garbage out. The difficult is when you don't know what garbage looks like.

[njcurveball]

Pascal's way of looking at the world is that of a gambler: each flip of a coin is independent of the previous one ( wins and losses are also evenly spaced ).

Bayes's allows for the accumulation of experience, and it's incorporation into a statistical model in the form of prior assumptions that can vary with circumstances. .

And if you would like to read more, this article is pretty good!

http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9645336

[thoroughbred]

Personally, I like low-side progressive systems.

However, in order to make anything work, you really need a positive expectancy.

In other words, there is no free lunch.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz


Dave,

You are absolutely correct in your "no free lunch" comment.

I believe it has been shown mathematically, that for probablistic systems, there is no betting method that will change the long term outcome.

A simple example is the tossing of a fair coin. No matter what money management system is used on this 50-50 heads or tails betting, the long term outcome is to break even.

Horse racing is so much more complicated than coin tossing that it is very easy to lose sight of this principle.

[Dave Schwartz]

I believe it has been shown mathematically, that for probablistic systems, there is no betting method that will change the long term outcome.

Although this debate has been held here before, I would restate that you cannot turn a positive into a negative or vice versa.

You can, however, modify the rate of profit (or loss) through a betting strategy.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[Lefty]

There is such a thing as Gambler's Ruin. The Kelly proves that even if you have a positive ROI but overbet your BR, you can still go broke.

[Dave Schwartz]

The Kelly proves that even if you have a positive ROI but overbet your BR, you can still go broke.

Actually, Kelly doesn't prove that.

It must be remembered that if you can turn a positive into a negative then that would mean a negative was beatable with the opposite strategy.

Dave

[Light]

I won thousands on my spreadsheet. I took 3k and tried it with real money. To make a long story short..I lost the 3k..

That is so true. There seems to be an added dimension when you enter real play vs. mythical.

[SMOO]

There is such a thing as Gambler's Ruin. The Kelly proves that even if you have a positive ROI but overbet your BR, you can still go broke.

Which may be the best reason NOT to use a progressive system, it can take a profitable long term method and turn it into a bankroll buster.

[Gambleonclaimers]

Dave, taking your example of turning a positive into a negative and vice versa:uisng your example of roullette we can agree that over the long run we know the house has the edge and it is a -EV (expected value) game. Are you saying playing this game with an optimum strategy it can be beaten over a long term sampling? Or are you just stating this game can never yield a + EV no matter what strategy is employed. Now I know people who regularly beat casino games for a profit they use an investment type strategy similar to what you preach. I believe eventually these people will lose over time is my theory is they haven't got close to the long term yet. this bring s me to my real question what constitutes long term and what systems may really hold up long term? Thanks

[Dave Schwartz]

Are you saying playing this game with an optimum strategy it can be beaten over a long term sampling? Or are you just stating this game can never yield a + EV no matter what strategy is employed.

I am saying that if you try to use a betting strategy to beat any negative expectancy game (of which roulette is a fine example) you will lose.

You cannot turn a negative into a positive.


Dave

[john messina]

It must be remembered that if you can turn a positive into a negative then that would mean a negative was beatable with the opposite strategy.


I believe Dave said it very eloquently.